Bombay HC: Procedure to be followed by Court if accused is suffering from mental illness.

 In terms of sub-section (2) of Section 330 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure, if the case is one in which, in the

opinion of the Magistrate or Court, as the case may be, the

bail cannot be granted, it shall order the said accused to be

kept in such a place where regular psychiatric treatment can

be provided and shall report the action taken to the State

Government.{Para 12}

13. In terms of sub-section (1) of Section 103 of the

Mental Healthcare Act, 2017, if any order is passed under

Section 330 of the Code of Criminal Procedure directing

admission of the prisoner with mental illness into any

suitable mental health establishment, shall be suffcient

authority for the admission of such person in such

establishment to which such person may be lawfully

transferred for care and treatment therein. The learned A.P.P.

has suggested that the applicant may be referred to the

Regional Mental Hospital, Yerwada, Pune for admission, care

and further treatment.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

901 BAIL APPLICATION NO.1426 OF 2020

Shankar Sopan Shikare Vs  The State of Maharashtra

CORAM : V.K. JADHAV, J.

DATE : 10.12.2020

Print Page

What should a procedure court follow if one spouse alleges that another spouse is the person of unsound mind?

Order XXXII Rule 15 of the Code states as follows:

"15. Rules 1 to 14 (except rule 2A) to apply to persons of unsound mind - Rules 1 to 14 (except rule 2A) shall, so far as may be apply to persons adjudged, before or during the pendency of the suit, to be of unsound mind and shall also apply to persons who, though not so adjudged, are found by the Court on enquiry to be incapable, by reason of any mental infirmity, of protecting their interest when suing or being sued."

8. On a bare perusal of the said provision, it is evident that the court is empowered to appoint a guardian in the event a person is adjudged to be of unsound mind. It further provides that even if a person is not so adjudged, but he/she is found by court on inquiry to be incapable of protecting his or her interest, when suing or being sued, by reason of any mental infirmity, an appropriate order thereunder can be passed. This rule is applicable to two categories of persons. The first category is persons adjudged to be of unsound mind. The second category is  persons found by the court on inquiry to be incapable, by reason of any mental infirmity, of protecting their interest when sued or being sued.

9. As early as in 1957, in Balakrishnan v. Kalliyani : 1957 KLT 268, this Court had held that necessarily, the court has to satisfy itself on a proper inquiry, that the defendant, by reason of unsoundness of mind or mental infirmity, is incapable of protecting his interest in the suit, and then only the court could exercise its jurisdiction to appoint a proper person as guardian of the defendant. Acting on a mere allegation that the defendant is a person of unsound mind does not amount to an adjudication, express or implied, on the question of the alleged unsoundness of mind of the defendant. To treat a person, as one incapable of protecting his own interests by reason of unsoundness of mind or mental infirmity, is a very serious matter. It is in recognition of the seriousness of the matter that the legislature has insisted on a proper inquiry being made into that matter to enable the court to come to a conclusion about the mental condition of the person concerned. It is for the court to decide upon the manner in which and to the extent to which  such inquiry has to be conducted to enable it to come to a satisfactory conclusion as to the mental condition of the party concerned. If notice of such inquiry is given to the party, he may himself appear in court and participate in the inquiry. If he appears or is brought before the court, his presence might enable the court to form an impression about his mental condition. If it is deemed necessary, he may be got examined by a medical expert and a certificate obtained as to whether he is mentally fit to protect his own interests.

10. The decision under Order XXXII Rule 15 of the Code involves very serious consequences as it results in the rights of a party to conduct his own litigation being taken away, and a guardianship being thrust upon him. In such circumstances, the court has not only the mandatory jurisdiction to enquire into the need for appointment of a next friend or guardian, but also the obligation to consider whether the person of unsound mind or of mental infirmity appearing before it is indeed capable of protecting his interests. If that person is not capable of protecting his interests on his own, the court has an obligation to protect his interests by appointing a next friend or guardian. If  such person is capable of protecting his own interests, the court has equally an obligation to see that a next friend or guardian is not superimposed on him, thereby depriving him of his right to take his own decisions. Weakness of mind due to any reason, making a person incapable of protecting his interests, is sufficient to unfold the protective umbrella under Order XXXII Rule 15 of the Code (See Raveendran v. Sobhana : 2008 (1) KLT 488).

11. If a decree is passed against a minor without appointment of a guardian, the decree is a nullity and is void and not merely voidable. This principle becomes applicable to the case of a person of unsound mind in view of Order XXXII Rule 15 of the Code (See Ram Chandra Arya v. Ram Singh : AIR 1968 SC 954).

 Kerala High Court

Jimshith Lal vs C.K Shabeena on 5 November, 2018

        

              PRESENT

          MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM

                                &

       MR. JUSTICE R. NARAYANA PISHARADI

 

Print Page

Madras HC: Precaution to be taken by the magistrate before committal of accused of unsound mind to session court

While so, the police completed the investigation and filed a final

report in P.R.C.No.15 of 2017 against Kaliyappan for the offence under

Section 302 IPC before the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Omalur.

Surprisingly, the Magistrate commenced the proceedings under Sections 207

and 209 Cr.P.C. and committed the case to the Court of Session, by order

dated 03.03.2008 in P.R.C. No.15 of 2007. Even during the committal

proceedings, the Magistrate did not take any steps to satisfy himself as to

whether Kaliyappan was in a sound state of mind to understand the proceedings.

20. A close reading of Section 328 Cr.P.C. shows that it deals with

(a) persons of unsound mind and (b) persons suffering from mental retardation at the stage of an inquiry. The expression “inquiry” is defined in Section 2(g) to mean every inquiry, other than a trial, under the Code. These may include proceedings relating to remand, bail, taking of cognizance, issuance of process, furnishing of copies, committal proceedings and framing

of charges. In this case, though there were sufficient materials to indicate that Kaliyappan was suffering from mental illness even at the stage of committal, no steps were taken by the committal Court under Section 328 Cr.P.C.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Crl.O.P.No.4993 of 2018 and Crl.M.P.Nos.2485 & 2486 of 2018

Kaliyappan Muniyappan Aanurpatty Vs State 

CORAM:

 Mr. JUSTICE P.N. PRAKASH

PRONOUNCED ON: 04.09.2020

Print Page

Supreme Court: Accused should raise plea of insanity or juvenility generally in the trial court

Pleas of unsoundness of mind under Section 84 of IPC or mitigating

circumstances like juvenility of age, ordinarily ought to be raised during trial

itself. Belated claims not only prevent proper production and appreciation of

evidence, but they also undermine the genuineness of the defence’s case.

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1551 of 2010

Mohd. Anwar Vs  The State (N.C.T. of Delhi) 

Surya Kant, J:

Dated: 19.08.2020

Print Page

Whether defendant can be permitted to examine doctor to ascertain mental condition of plaintiff at the stage of final argument ?

 In view of the own admission of the plaintiff/petitioner No. 2 in the plaint that she had instituted the suit for cancellation of sale deed in the year 2012 being next friend of plaintiff No. 1 as noted above, this Court is of the view that no further enquiry was required to be made by the Court under Order XXXII, Rule 1 to 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The scope of enquiry under the provisions of Order XXXII, Rule 1 to 15 is limited for the purpose of appointment of next friend to represent a plaintiff. Plaintiff No. 1 is properly represented by his wife. As per the plaint averments, plaintiff No. 2 (wife) is capable of protecting the interest of the plaintiff No. 1 (her husband) and her interest in the subject-matter of suit cannot be said to be adverse to that of the plaintiff No. 1.

17. In view of the above discussion, the argument of learned Counsel for the petitioner that the enquiry required to be made under Order XXXII, Rule 15 (Rule 1 to 15) of the Code of Civil Procedure has not been done by the Court, below, is wholly misconceived.

 In the instant case, the Appellate Court has considered the prayer of the appellant to adduce additional oral evidence of Doctor at the stage of final argument in appeal and has opined that the documentary evidences filed by the appellant during the course of hearing in the appeal had already been taken on record vide order dated 6.7.2017. In view of the available evidence taken on record, there was no further requirement of additional oral evidence of Doctor.

25. Further, an enquiry has already been made by the First Appellate Court regarding the mental condition of Sri Vinod Kumar (plaintiff No. 1) who was present before it on 6.7.2017. The exercise of discretion by the First Appellate Court at the stage of final disposal of the appeal in holding that no further evidence was required, cannot be said to be an improper exercise of judicial discretion.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD

Civil Misc. Petition No. 4468 of 2017 and Matters Under Article 227 No. 3194 of 2017

Decided On: 28.07.2017

Vinod Kumar  Vs. Tarachand

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Sunita Agarwal, J.

Citation: AIR 2018(NOC) 703 ALL

Print Page

Notes on provisions regarding accused person of unsound mind

S 328 of CRPC(amended by amendment Act 2008 with effect from 31-12-2009)

Procedure in case of  accused being lunatic:-

1) When a Magistrate holding an inquiry has reason to believe that the person against whom the inquiry is being held is of unsound mind and consequently incapable of making his defence , the Magistrate shall inquire into the fact of such unsoundness of mind and shall cause such person to be examined by Civil Surgeon or other medical officer of district and thereupon shall examine such surgeon or other officer as a witness and shall reduce the examination to writing.

(1-A) If civil surgeon finds accused to be of unsound mind,he shall refer such person to a psychiatrist for care and treatment and psychiatrist shall inform Magistrate whether accused is suffering from unsoundness of mind or mental retardation:

Print Page

What is duty of court if petitioner in Hindu marriage petition is alleged to be person of unsound mind?

Order XXXII Rule 15 reads as under :-

"15. Rules 1 to 14 (except rule 2-A) to apply to persons of unsound mind - Rules 1 to 14 (except Rule 2-A) shall, so far as may be, apply to persons adjudged, before or during the pendency of the suit, to be of unsound mind and shall also apply to persons who, though not so adjudged, are found by the Court on enquiry to be incapable, by reason of any mental infirmity, of protecting their interest when suing or being sued."

7. It is, therefore, obvious that either a litigant has to be adjudged as being mentally challenged and incapable of conducting the matter or the Court must find on enquiry that such person would be incapable of protecting his/her interest in the matter.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AURANGABAD BENCH)

Writ Petition No. 6989 of 2016

Decided On: 15.06.2017

 Sushma  Vs Umesh

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

R.V. Ghuge, J.

Citation: 2018(1) MHLJ 51

Print Page

When court should not give divorce on ground of unsoundness of mind of other spouse?

 From the above evidence, we are of the view that, it is difficult to assume that a case of unsoundness of mind as required by the statute, has been made out. As has been pointed out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, mere unsoundness of mind cannot by itself constitute a ground for divorce. The unsoundness of mind should be to such an extent that it should be incurable that other spouse cannot be reasonably expected to live with the person who is alleged to be mentally unsound.

22. We have examined the evidence on record and the cumulative effect of the evidence on record leads us to believe that the husband has not made out a case for grant of divorce on the ground of unsoundness of mind. There might have been hiccups in the family but that by itself cannot lead to a presumption that the wife is of unsound mind, which is incurable and it is of such gravity that the husband cannot be expected to live with her. Even the doctor, examined by the husband namely, P.W. 2 has deposed that the disease can be controlled. He would further depose that the wife is capable of discharging her marital obligations. He would also state that with medication she can lead normal life. The husband has also admitted that he had led a normal family life, as a result a male child was born on 12.07.2002. These vital admissions, according to us, would go against the claim of the husband that the wife is suffering from incurable unsoundness of mind.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS

C.M.A. No. 990 of 2008 and Crl. R.C. No. 1353 of 2007

Decided On: 20.12.2016

 T. Jagedeeswari and Ors.

Vs.

 Anand

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Pushpa Sathyanarayana and R. Subramanian, JJ.

Citation:AIR 2017 (NOC) 415MAD

Print Page

When defence of unsoundness of mind of accused is not tenable?

On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent-State of Maharashtra sought to justify the correctness of the findings of the Division Bench of the High Court and submits that the first appellate court in its domain has exercised its appellate power and re-appreciated the evidence and eventually arrived at the conclusion on the basis of the material evidence placed on record, including the defence witness, as also taking into consideration the subsequent conduct of the accused at the time of producing him, after the arrest, before the learned Magistrate, which was the first opportunity for him to state that he has been suffering from schizophrenia, and at the time of hearing of the appeal, he has been sent to the Civil Surgeon. After considering the opinion of the Civil Surgeon and the evidence placed on record, the appellate court has recorded a finding that it is evident, that it was realised on 20.08.2004 that the accused/Appellant herein was talking irrelevantly that was followed by an order of reference of the Appellant to the Civil Surgeon. Whereafter, the accused was certified to be fit to face the trial in March, 2005. Thus, relapse to schizophrenic attack was in August, 2004, which is one year after the incident on 30.07.2003 and, thereafter, at the time of arrest, he has not complained before the learned Magistrate, therefore, the Division Bench of the High Court presumed that there were no signs of unsoundness of mind of the accused/Appellant, otherwise there could have been a reference of the accused/Appellant by the learned Magistrate to the Competent Medical expert Doctor at the relevant time. Further, adverting to the relevant fact, namely, on 31.07.2003 at 3.00 p.m., when he was produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Srirampur, the learned Magistrate recorded that the accused/Appellant has no complaint of ill-treatment at the hands of Police. On the day next, after the incident, there were no signs of unsoundness of mind and with reference to the remand report, because it is not exhibited document, presumption, as to the action as recorded in the remand report referred to by the learned Magistrate, will have to be drawn because the learned Magistrate being an official, he has been presumed to have done official act properly while remanding to the judicial custody at the time when the Appellant was produced before him. Therefore, the Division Bench of the High Court has arrived at the right conclusion that there is no evidence adduced by the accused/Appellant on record to show that he was suffering from mental illness on the date of the occurrence to extend the benefit of Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code.

7. The Division Bench of the High Court with reference to the conduct of the accused seen before the incident, has arrived at the conclusion that he was working to a plan on the day he was produced before the learned Magistrate on 31.07.2003, there were no signs of unsoundness of mind. The defence has not been successful in proving that "at the crucial point of time" or "at the time of doing the act" by unsoundness of mind, the accused/Appellant was incapable of knowing the nature of his act. Regarding evidence of unsoundness of mind brought on record is not regarding unsoundness of mind soon before or after the incident. On the contrary, soon before the incident, the accused/Appellant appears to have conscientiously acted upon the plan and, therefore, the Division Bench of the High Court was rightly not agreed with the finding of fact recorded by the trial court on the charge holding him not guilty. It has rightly set aside the finding of the trial court holding that the case of the accused does not fall within the purview of general exceptions available Under Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code. Further, we have carefully examined the reasons recorded by the trial court Judge that immediately after the incident the Appellant has performed Pooja and also prepared tea that would factor in to hold that the conclusion arrived at by the Division Bench of the High Court is based on proper appreciation of the evidence placed on record. More so, in absence of defence for unsoundness of mind the accused/Appellant on the date of the incident, in our considered opinion, the Division Bench of the High Court did not err in setting aside the acquittal judgment passed by the trial court.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Crl. A. No. 2143 of 2009

Decided On: 13.01.2016

 Uttam Nandram Somwanshi

Vs.

 State of Maharashtra

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

V. Gopala Gowda and R.K. Agrawal, JJ.

Citation:(2016) 13 SCC205

Print Page

Precaution to be taken by court while conducting trial of person of unsound mind

 In view of the discussion of law and facts made above, we are satisfied that learned trial court erred in law in resuming full-fledged trial despite receiving categorical opinion of the medical board comprising of experts, conveyed to it by the Superintendent, Mental Hospital, Jaipur, vide letter dated 25.03.2009 that though there was partial improvement in the condition of accused and that he was capable of taking care of himself and would not cause any threat to himself and others, but "he was not capable of understanding the judicial process." This communication was specifically taken note of by the trial court in its order dated 08.04.2009, even then it proceeded with the trial further and did not rectify the mistake despite some of the witnesses, who were examined subsequently, stating about mental unsoundness of the accused at the time of crime. This was a serious lacunae which vitiated the entire trial.

22. In the result, present appeal succeeds and is allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 17.07.2013 of the trial court is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the trial court for fresh medical examination of the accused-appellant from a Medical Board consisting of three expert psychiatrists to determine whether the accused-appellant was capable of making his defence during trial or otherwise, and then proceed in accordance with the provisions contained in Chapter XXV of the Code of Criminal Procedure, especially Sections 329 to 331 thereof, including about his right to be released on bail on fulfillment of the condition envisaged in Section 330 of the Cr.P.C.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JAIPUR BENCH)

D.B. Criminal (Jail) Appeal No. 848/2013

Decided On: 26.05.2016

 Ramswaroop

Vs.

State of Rajasthan

Coram:

Mohammad Rafiq and Vijay Kumar Vyas, JJ.

Citation:2017 CRLJ(NOC) 23 Raj

Print Page

Procedure to be followed by court when accused has raised plea of unsoundness of mind

 Needless to state that enquiry under Section 329 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure is treated as part of trial.  Section 329 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that when Trial Court is of
the view that Accused is a man of unsound mind and consequently

incapable of making his defence, after considering the medical report
in this regard, he should postpone further proceeding of case and trial
will start as soon as he is found to be capable of making his defence.
It is mandatory that when plea of unsoundness of mind is raised
before the Court it shall try the fact of unsoundness of mind and
incapacity of Accused at the first instance.  
12 Section   329   of   the   Code   of   Criminal   Procedure
contemplates two stages of procedure.  First stage lays down that it
must   appear   to   the   Judge   that   Accused   placed   on   trial   was   of
unsound mind and incapable of making his defence.  Next stage that
has to follow when it appears to Judge that Accused was of unsound
mind and consequently incapable of making his defence, is that the
fact of such unsoundness of mind and incapacity has to be enquired
into on the basis of material placed before the Court.  The decision in
this regard cannot be based merely on the information received from
doctors, but it must be based on evidence and the entire material
brought forth before the Court.

THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1398 OF 2016

Firoza Fazal Shaikh, Vs  The State of Maharashtra,

CORAM  : INDIRA K. JAIN, J.
DATE      : 22nd April, 2016.

Citation: 2016 ALLMR(CRI)2172

Print Page

Whether power of attorney executed by mentally infirm person is legal and valid?

Where the principle was found to be old, feeble, week and mentally infirm and not in a position to think independently for herself, the power of attorney executed by her would become worthless. The principle must be in a position to take an authorisation, continue to exert his or her authority so that the agent binds the principle.

In the above cited case, it was also held that preventing the court from making an enquiry into the mental infirmity of a party by an agent or attorney was obstructing the course of justice. 

Contract - power of attorney and client counsel relationship - Section 183 of Contract Act, 1872, Section 2 of Powers of Attorney Act, 1882, Section 35 of Advocates Act, 1961, Order 32 A Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and Clause 12 of Letters Patent - a power of attorney cannot go beyond the principal - principal must be in a position to make an authorization and continue to exert his authority- Client unable to give instructions because of his mental infirmity - Client Counsel relationship comes to an end.

Allahabad High Court

Mahendra Pratap Singh (Deceased) ... vs Smt. Padam Kumari Devi on 22 May, 1992

Equivalent citations: AIR 1993 All 143

Bench: R S Dhavan

Print Page

Burden to prove that testatrix was of unsound mind is on defendant

2008(5)ALLMR639, 2008(5)BomCR653, 2008(6)MhLj386

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (PANAJI-GOA BENCH)

S.A. No. 27 of 1999

Decided On: 19.06.2008

Appellants: Janardan @ Govind Vassudeva Bhat and Ors.
Vs.
Respondent: Mortibai Ramchandra Bhat since deceased through her unknown legal heirs and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
N.A. Britto, J.

Property - Will - Suit properties belonged to P - After his death, property allotted to his widow M, in inventory proceedings - M bequeathed them to plaintiff by Will - Upon death of M, plaintiff filed suit for declaration of ownership - Defendants contended that M was of unsound mind - Will was not executed in presence of five witnesses therefore, null and void - Trial Court accepted objection raised by defendant - Hence, present appeal - Held, defendants failed to prove that Will was executed by M when she was of unsound mind - Requirement of five witnesses now replaced with three witnesses - Plaintiff became owner of suit properties after death of M - Defendant had no title to the same - Appeal allowed

Print Page

Basic features of CRPC amendment act 2008 with effect from 1-11-2010

1. Definition of Victim

The Code of Criminal procedure, 1973 (“CrPC”) did not define the term ‘victim’ in definitional clause under Section 2. The Apex Courts interpreted the term ‘victim’ in various instances. The new CrPC (Amendment) Act, 2008 (“2008 Act”) defined the term ‘victim’ as a person who has suffered any loss or injury caused by reason of the act or omission for which the accused person has been charged and the expression ‘victim’ also includes his or her guardian or legal heir.

2. Representation by Lawyer

Any criminal act is considered as a wrong against the State and hence it is the duty of the State to institute the case on behalf of primary victim. The CrPC provides for the appointment of Public Prosecutor and Assistant Public Prosecutor to represent the case of victim on behalf of the state. The 2008 Act added a clause in section 24 that the court may permit the victim to engage an advocate of his choice to assist the prosecution under sub-section (8) of section 24.

Print Page

Whether person suffering from mental disease is exempted from criminal liability?

 Next question which needs consideration is as to on whom the onus lies to prove unsoundness of mind. In law, the presumption is that every person is sane to the extent that he knows the natural consequences of his act. The burden of proof in the face of Section 105 of the Evidence Act is on the accused. Though the burden is on the accused but he is not required to prove the same beyond all reasonable doubt, but merely satisfy the preponderance of probabilities. The onus has to be discharged by producing evidence as to the conduct of the accused prior to the offence, his conduct at the time or immediately after the offence with reference to his medical 

condition by production of medical evidence and other relevant factors. Even if the accused establishes unsoundness of mind, Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code will not come to its rescue, in case it is found that the accused knew that what he was doing was wrong or that it was contrary to law. In order to ascertain that, it is imperative to take into consideration the circumstances and the behaviour preceding, attending and following the crime. Behaviour of an accused pertaining to a desire for concealment of the weapon of offence and conduct to avoid detection of crime go a long way to ascertain as to whether, he knew the consequences of the act done by him. Reference in this connection can be made to a decision of this Court in the case of T.N. Lakshmaiah v. State of Karnataka, (2002) 1 SCC 219, in which it has been held as follows:

9. Under the Evidence Act, the onus of proving any of the exceptions mentioned in the Chapter lies on the accused though the requisite standard of proof is not the same as expected from the prosecution. It is sufficient if an accused is able to bring his case within the ambit of any of the general exceptions by the standard of preponderance of probabilities, as a result of which he may succeed not because that he proves his case to the hilt but because the version given by him casts a doubt on the prosecution case.

10. In State of M.P. v. Ahmadull,AIR 1961 SC 998, this Court held that the burden of proof that the mental condition of the accused was, at the crucial point of time, such as is described by the section, lies on the accused who claims the benefit of this exemption vide Section 105 of the Evidence Act [Illustration (a)]. The settled position of law is that every man is presumed to be sane and to possess a sufficient degree of reason to be responsible for his acts unless the contrary is proved. Mere ipse dixit of the accused is not enough for availing of the benefit of the exceptions under Chapter IV.

11. In a case where the exception under Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code is claimed, the court has to consider whether, at the time of commission of the offence, the accused, by reason of unsoundness of mind, was incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law. The entire conduct of the accused, from the time of the commission of the offence up to the time the sessions proceedings commenced, is relevant for the purpose of ascertaining as to whether plea raised was genuine, bona fide or an afterthought.

Accused seeking exoneration from criminal liability on the ground of of unsoundness of mind should prove legal insanity and not medical insanity. Even if accused establishes unsoundness of mind IPC will not come to his rescue if it is found that he was knowing that what he was doing was wrong or contrary to law.

Supreme Court of India

Surendra Mishra vs State Of Jharkhand on 6 January, 2011

Author: C K Prasad

Bench: Harjit Singh Bedi, P. Sathasivam, Chandramauli Kr. Prasad

Print Page